Archive for the ‘Organizing’ Category

To End All Wars: Adam Hochschild

Saturday, September 24th, 2011

If you’ve ever stood a picket line, leafleted about an unpopular cause,  been arrested for civil disobedience, fought and lost against the powerful, if you have raged about the lives lost to war,  here’s a book that should be in your hands –and half-way read.  If you vaguely sense that the  modern international order came spilling from the obscure depths of World War I, Adam Hochschild is the writer you should turn to.  His To End All Wars  is a  marvelous history not just of WW I and its generals and governments, but of the  mostly forgotten individuals who fought back against great evil and great ignorance, often reviled by their comrades of only weeks before.

Following his two other excellent books, King Leopold’s Ghost and To Bury the Chains  Hochschild has done it again with a stirring account of key players in England’s part in World War I; the Generals and politicians of course but the opposition figures as well — the COs who were threatened with death before a firing squad, the women  coming out of the very militant  suffragette  movement, who took on the war machine, the small handful of socialists and labor leaders who agitated continually against the constant calls to Join Up and Do Your Duty.  It’s not all a glorious story, either.  Not all who opposed the war before the shooting began, stayed true to their beliefs.  Many socialists and pacifists of every stripe, vociferous in their condemnation of war in the abstract, or insistent on the  reality of the brotherhood of workers around the world, fell fast into march step with the fevered nationalism of the day.  But some kept at it, spending virtually their entire lives in meetings, demonstrations, letter writing campaigns, and jails.

Hochschild spent some five years combing the histories and archives to come up with his “Dramatis Personae,”  some of them among the most famous Britons of the time, some of them, resisters,  famous then and forgotten now.  The military men,  Sir John French,  the Commander in Chief of the British Armies in France, Sir Herbert Horatio Kitchner,  as Minister of War  his boss,  General Douglas Haig, Winston Churchill,  had all been young men in the colonial wars of the 1880s,  thrilled to be in combat against Muslim Arabs of the Sudan who did not know their place or appreciate the benefits of being part of the Empire.  Many had enhanced their fighting mentality in vicious battles in South Africa against the non-British white colonists spread across the Transvaal, in the Second Boer War 1899-1902.

Charlotte Despard is introduced, as one of the great contrasts and tension points of the book.  She had come from a well-to-do British family and had early felt great compassion for the the poor she saw around her.  She married well and for 20 years engaged in political causes, and wrote long romantic novels.  In 1890, when Charlotte was 46, her husband died and she found her true calling, working in one of London’s poorest slums, opening community centers and attending to the lives and education of the poor, devoting herself,  as Hochschild quotes her, “to those who slave all their lives long … earning barely a subsistence,  and thrown aside to death or the Parish when they are no longer profitable.”

Charlotte Despard and Sir John French were brother and sister.  When he led the British armies in France from 1914 to his “promotion out”, in December of 1915, she opposed the war with all her being.  When he oversaw the suppression of the Irish fight for independence, she cheered for it, and opposed him.  And yet, until near the end, they remained close.  She was his elder sister and had raised him after the early death of their parents.

In Despard’s sixties she  was jailed for 21 days in Holloway Prison for suffragette activities.  It was with these women she met the other major players in To End All Wars, also members of a  split family:  Emmeline Pankhurst and her three daughters,  Christabel, Sylvia and Adela.  Militant suffragettes, Emmeline was both charismatic and dogmatic. She declared that suffragettes were “soldiers engaged in a holy war…”  and led them in window smashing, assaults on police officers, and arson.   When members of the WSPU [Women's Social and Political Union], which she had founded, told her she was acting against the WSPU constitution, she flew into a fury and replied, “then I’ll tear up the constitution.” As war broke over the nation in 1914, Emmeline and Christabel called for an end to militant suffragette activities and to back the government — which had jailed her so often– against the German Peril.  She used her powerful speaking skills to advance the cause of British patriotism,  with accusations of treason for those who opposed the war, including Sylvia.

These were women to be reckoned with.  Others among the opposition to the war were Emily Hobhouse who, kicking and screaming, opposed the British concentration camps in South Africa during the Boer War, and Keir Hardy, socialist leader of the Scottish miners, member of parliament, outspoken opponent of the Boer War and the war with Germany.  He was also Sylvia Pankhurst’s lover.

You gotta read this book just to know these folks!

After introducing us to the major players, Hochschild takes a brief look at the contending forces in the war to come: the Germans with their dream of equaling the British and French in power, prestige and colonies, Austro-Hungarians furious with the Slavs of Serbia who were straining to leave their  Empire and calling on their “brother Slavs” of Russia to lend a hand; the Russians with their fear of German territorial designs, humiliated by the Japanese 10 years earlier, held in contempt around the world [Roosevelt said that "No human beings, black, yellow or white could be quite as untruthful, as insincere, as arrogant  ... as untrustworthy in every way, as the Russians."] were spoiling to prove their mettle by assisting Serbia’s Slavs.  France had recent memories of a German invasion, loss of Alsace-Lorraine, and occupation of Paris in the War of 1870,  the Franco-Prussian war.   England would have liked to stay out of the brewing mess, but there was there treaty with Belgium to consider.  All parties, including Germany,  had signed to honor Belgium’s neutrality but England which had created an independent Belgium after the revolutions of 1830, had a particular interest.  Wellington had defeated Napoleon on the wide open fields of Belgium.  England did not want any competitor nation to control that area.  Belgium’s coasts are England’s frontiers as Barbara Tuchman memorably puts it.

And then the story unfolds. Germany invades Belgium.  England is forced to respond.  France, despite its years-in-the-making plan to attack-attack  is beaten back to the doorstep of Paris and then, in a miracle, holds at the Battle of the Marne — all within the first  month of the war– and all settle-in for 4 years of disastrous static warfare: 10 million soldiers dead;  6 million civilians. 60% of French men between 18-40  killed or injured.  At the books end we not only have gripping knowledge of the struggle to make anti-war voices heard — in the face of formidable, and often ugly responses, but we know quite a bit about British colonialism, the primer of the Boer War, as well as the lack of generalship and diplomacy which led to such horrific losses.

There were only a couple of things I’d wished.  Though he spends a good chapter on the young officers of the Boer war who became British generals in WW I, I felt a bit more time could have been spent to help us understand the popular explosion of war-fever in England, against the Germans.  It turns out that Germany supported the Boer “rebels” against the British in this war, and so there was considerable popular feeling against those who had helped “kill our boys.” Similarly, the effect memories of the Franco-Prussian war had on the French.  It is amazing to read, or see in documentary movies, but in all three countries, ordinary citizens took to the streets following the declarations of war, as though unexpected holidays or a rain of wealth had been announced.

Hochschild also suggests that had the assassination of the the Archduke Ferdinand had not happened, and the Austrians not thought it a Serbian plot, the war might have been avoided.  That’s not my reading at all.  Germany’s Count Alfred von Schlieffen has been drafting his infamous plan, to open a two-front war, for years.  Diplomats and military men all across Europe thought a war inevitable.  There were predictions in the spring of 1914 that it would start no later than October.  The assassination was just the particular bullet to hit the powder keg; any of a hundred others would have done as well.  The time to stop wars is not after the powder is exploding it was years and years earlier when the competition for colonies and the wealth they brought was growing, when all “the dirty looks” and “dissing” between countries, and leaders and citizens were festering.  Too many heroes wait from war time to manifest themselves, and not enough show up when it’s really hard and idiocies and wrong headed polices have to be opposed.

Of course the definitive military-political book of the first month of the WW I  is Barbara Tuchman’s justly famed The Guns of August.  If To End All Wars  grabs your attention you will meet many of the same characters –mostly not at their finest– in her book.  Sir John French, in particular, comes out looking like he should have paid attention to his big sister, and retired to their estate.  Had others not intervened, his leadership — lack of– would have shamed England for decades, and likely led to the German occupation of France.

With three connected histories about the interconnecting popular movements against man’s inhumanity to man, the African slave trade, the Belgian Congo rubber slavery and anti-war warriors, it will be wonderful to see what Hoschschild comes up with next.  With such a depth of knowledge in the European human rights movements it would make sense for him to add to that.  The British CND [Committee for Nuclear Disarmament] which gave us the famous “peace” sign, would be one options, or perhaps a history of some of the early and long lasting NGOs like Oxfam, Amnesty International, Human Rights watch — and looks at their significant campaigns, often carried out on war-footings as dangerous and demanding of great courage as for any soldier.

[For documentary pictures of war celebration, see Wooden Crosses [Les Croix de Bois], Raymond Bernard’s 1932 film of French soldiers on the Western Front.]

Organizers Extraordinaire

Saturday, January 26th, 2008

A friend and I drove down to Fresno for two days to pay our respects to one of the grand old men of California organizing. Gilbert Padilla is a spry and dry-witted youngster of 80 who cut his organizing teeth with the CSO (Community Services Organization) in the Central Valley after his stint in the WW II army (along with his 5 brothers.) Unwelcome to many places and jobs on their return Gilbert, along with many others, hispanic and black, became the new ground troops for equality and justice that grew into the civil rights movements of the 60s and beyond. “Give us a class on this” we asked him, using one of his favorite phrases to get people to talk about issues that concern them. He showed us a short video interview he had done with Hector Tarango who initiated the landmark desegregation case, Westminster v. Mendez, in Orange County, 1947. Following an unprecedented voter registration drive organized by Fred Ross and the CSO, Hector and others decided to sue Westminster to provide hispanics with an education equal to that of the anglo children at the school directly adjacent, separated by a wire fence and decades of discrimination. Thurgood Marshall came to visit following the decision and used many of the arguments in his Brown v. The Board of Education.

It was a great classroom for Jim and me to sit with Gilbert and Esther. You can catch up a bit on the CSO Project website and see the same clip of Hector — weeping at his recollection of those battles 60 years ago. A partial transcript is here.

My sense is that we have done a poor job of leaving our histories and memories to those coming along now. The CSO Project is a great addition to the grass roots effort. We need to see more — of draft resisters, anti-war organizers, early women’s groups, premature world worriers….

Film: Amazing Grace

Saturday, April 14th, 2007

Darn! I wanted to like it. I wanted to like it real bad.

Amazing Grace is the latest film by that title, and the first to treat the unutterably difficult, and in retrospect stunning, struggle in Britain in the late 1700s and early 1800s to put an end to the British slave trade. Caught in the blinding amnesia of modern life it is almost impossible for us to imagine what was taken as a matter of comfortable fact in the life of the British nation, and had been for at least one hundred years — and longer in Portugal and Spain.

So long as the Empire, and material wealth, grew few cared to ask how it happened. “Favored by God” was a popular belief of course. British ships carried cargo to the four corners of the earth. The merchant fleet was the greatest ever seen. Though the Colonies had recently been lost, Great Britain was still the greatest power on earth. Sugar had been flooding the nation for decades, replacing other sweeteners and providing the cheap energy source, in sugared tea and marmalade for noon-time bread (the first “fast food”,) for the growing industrial classes. Where it was coming from, or how, was of no more interest to most British than the source of bacon or roses is to modern Americans. We like ‘em, we want ‘em. We pay (too much!) for ‘em. End of story.

In 1787 a band of 12, mostly Quakers, assembled in a print shop in George Yard in London to begin a quixotic campaign to convince millions of their fellow citizens, and the members of Parliament, that abominable cruelty was responsible for much of this wealth. It was being practiced in their names, on human beings like themselves. It was being done with neck-irons and branding, with flogging and mutilation. It was being done with enslavement and torture and death as its chief implements: death by drowning, death by impalement, death by starvation, death by dogs. If you don’t believe it, they said, look at this evidence. They set irons, and whips, testimony and drawings before disbelieving eyes and described it in exquisite detail. This, they said, is what we are doing, and this, they said, must stop. Regardless of the financial cost to you or to me or the Empire itself, it must stop. They carried their campaign to every ear and eye in Great Britain for 46 years, until the Abolition of Slavery Act of 1833. This story is one of the great stories of human history and is scarcely mentioned in textbooks and hardly known except among handfuls of historians.

This is the story I wanted to see. How did this campaign unfold? What were it’s trials, its errrors, it setbacks and successes? I wanted to see Thomas Clarkson barely escape with his life on the docks of Liverpool as a group of slave ship officers tried to end it and his damnable success in attacking their livelihood. I wanted to see him riding the 35,000 miles on horseback going to meetings. I wanted to see James Stephen witnessing the trial in the Barabadoes that changed his life, and his colleague on board a slaver taking notes in Greek so as not to be spied upon and turning them over to the organizers. Oh, what a splendid movie might have been made!

It was not to be. Apparently Michael Apted, the director (also of Coal Miner’s Daughter, Gorillas In the Mist, Incident at Oglala, as well as thrillers like Extreme Measures, and The World Is Not Enough (Bond)) was asked to do a film, not about the anti-slavery movement, but about William Wilberforce — and that is what we get. Clarkson, Stephen, John Newton, the repentant slave ship captain who wrote the song “Amazing Grace,” all appear but as peripheral lights to the candelabra of Wilberforce, his friendship with William Pitt, and the long and intricate Parliamentary battles they waged. We see Wilberforce’s loss of faith, his battles through illness, his falling in love and fatherhood, his regaining of strength and faith and the first two victories in the struggle — though we don’t see the final, great victory, the news of which he got on his deathbed. Curiously, we aren’t told the source of his own wealth or if it was threatened by his obsession, nor who is father is — the famous Bishop Wilberforce who battled Darwin’s heretical ideas from pulpit and pamphlet for decades.

As such a film — a period biography — it was good enough. The fine volunteers at rottentomatoes.com give it a 72% favorable. I would be one of those tempted to throw, not hold, my tomato though.

Some liked it well enough. Andrew Sarris is among them. He takes it, and reviews it, as a very well done bio-pic. Fair enough, and perhaps the way to enter people’s hearts. Heck, even the Socialists like it, so maybe I’m missing something. For an aging curmudgeon though, who has seen enough movies about splendid love-affairs in period costume, and stirring speeches to sitting nobles, to last him into a second lifetime, it was a disappointment.

Where is the film we need to see? The Battle of Algiers for the nonviolent? The raw, gripping black and white scenes of clandestine meetings, broadsides hastily posted, meetings fearfully attended in guttering candle light? Where are the close ups of eyes witnessing the dumping out of sacks the terrible instruments of confinement and torture? Where are the gasps as the schematic of a slave ship’s hold is displayed and viscerally understood? Where is the sense of a growing movement, of people refusing to buy sugar, of putting up with privation, with suffering the scorn of their neighbors? Where are those who stopped their work, risked their livelihoods, to join the movement, to gather the evidence, to provide the heaving social earth of a social movement from which the Parliamentary maneuvers came and upon which they depended?

That’s the movie we need. Meanwhile the present Amazing Grace is good enough to spend your time with. It’s long past time for William Wilberforce’s memory to be dusted off and held in the spotlight reserved for our heroes. Though after you see the movie, or in place of it, read deeply and hold dear Adam Hochschild’s marvelous Bury the Chains, the book that should be the source of the movie we all want to see.

The New New Left: SDS redux

Thursday, March 29th, 2007

I was a bit pleased and a bit puzzled to see that the planting of flags, a week or so ago, all over the Reed College campus in honor of the war dead had been headed up by SDS (Students for a Democratic Society.) The original SDS, of the early 1960s, had fractured into a million acts of idiocy, foolishness, personal vanity and age. What was left was a memory of brilliant beginnngs, the hibernated root of the tentative progressivism growing up through the cracks of the crumbling Democratic house.

Here follows some explanation of the reappearance. It seems indeed that there has been a re-cloaking of activism and vision with the name of the once vibrant student movement, and a re-emergence of some of its participatory democracy neurons. Some of the gray beards are equivocal about the usurpation but don’t count me among them. Learn from the past says I: repeat the good and skip the bad. As frameworks go, early SDS is not a bad one.

The Nation: The New SDS